[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.R. Ramkumar vs Principal Secretary on 2 December, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.659 of 2025 1
2025:KER:92459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 659 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.15990
OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P.R. RAMKUMAR
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O PONNUMANI, U.P.S.A.,
EVANS SCHOOLS, PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT MELEKUZHINJANVILA,
KALLANPOTTA VEEDU, KARODE.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695506
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (ACADEMIC)
W.A.No.659 of 2025 2
2025:KER:92459
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
6 MANAGER
EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
7 HEADMISTRESS
EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
8 T.R. REENA
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
9 S.R. SHINE LAL
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
10 V.N. RANY
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
11 A.S. ARUN
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
12 DIVYA J. DEV
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
W.A.No.659 of 2025 3
2025:KER:92459
13 A. JAGADEESH
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
14 ASWATHY.S.S.
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
15 TONY.T.H.
U.P.S.A., EVANS SCHOOLS,
PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.11.2025,
THE COURT ON 2.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.659 of 2025 4
2025:KER:92459
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
This writ is appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15990 of 2023,
challenging the judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the
appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the
following reliefs;
"i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
or order calling upon the records pertaining to Exhibits P10,
P13 and P14 to the extent of non-reckoning his appointment
notionally with effect from 01.06.2010 from the date of
eruption of the vacancy in which his appointment has been
approved with effect from 01.06.2016 by Exhibit P10 and
Exhibit P16 to the extent of adjusting the 14th respondent in
the vacancy of petitioner in which his appointment is
approved by Exhibit P10;
ii. To declare that petitioner is entitled to reckon his
appointment notionally with effect from 01.06.2010 dehors
his approval of appointment with effect from 01.06.2016
and to revise his seniority by reckoning his notional
appointment with effect from 01.06.2010;
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 7 to allow
2025:KER:92459
the petitioner to continue as U.P.S.T, dehors Exhibit P13 by
reckoning his appointment notionally with effect from
01.06.2010 onwards;"
2. The father of the appellant died on 17.07.1985 while he
was employed as U.P.S.A., in Evans School, Parassala, which is an
aided school under individual management, as contemplated
under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. The appellant is entitled
to get appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 51B of
Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules, 1959, ('KER' in short).
After attaining the majority and acquiring the qualifications
prescribed for the post of U.P.S.A., the appellant submitted an
application for appointment. But the Manager of the school
declined the claim of the appellant, and hence the appellant
approached this Court and in pursuance to the direction issued by
this Court, the Assistant Educational Officer, Parassala, passed
Ext.P1 order dated 29.09.2006 directing the Manager to appoint
the appellant in the vacancy of U.P.S.A. arising after 12.01.2005.
2.1 The Manager preferred a revision before the
Government against Ext.P1 order, which culminated in the
affirmation of Ext.P1 order by virtue of Ext.P2 Government order
2025:KER:92459
dated 31.05.2008. Then the Manager filed W.P.(C)No.18868 of
2008 before this Court assailing the order of the educational
authorities, which was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment dated
07.01.2015, which was confirmed in W.A.No.365 of 2015 as per
Ext.P4 judgment dated 18.02.2015 and also in Ext.P5 order dated
14.09.2015 in the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court.
2.2. During the pendency of the matter before this Court,
the appointees as U.P.S.A approached this Court to consider their
approval of appointment on additional division vacancies after
lifting the ban on appointment in the additional division vacancies
pursuant to the Government order dated 12.01.2010. On the basis
of the direction of this Court, the Government directed to approve
the appointments if the only objection was the non-appointment
of a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of KER ('Rule 51B
claimant' in short), and also directed the Manager to give
appointment to the appellant if W.P.(C)No.18868 of 2008 filed by
the Manager goes against him. The Manager maintained the stand
that he had set apart one additional division vacancy which had
arisen in the year 2010-11 to satisfy the Rule 51B claimant. The
2025:KER:92459
Government order dated 08.03.2012 in this regard is produced as
Ext.P6 in the writ petition.
2.3. The appellant states that the approval of appointments
as U.P.S.A., in pursuance to Ext.P6 order, was done after taking
written consent from those appointees that they have no objection
in revising their seniority based on the judgment pertaining to Rule
51B claimant in W.P.(C)No.18868 of 2008. In support of the said
contention, the appellant produced Ext.P7, a copy of a written
consent of one Biju S.S, U.P.S.A of the school submitted before
the Assistant Educational Officer. According to the appellant
respondents 8 and 9, who are now placed above the appellant, had
also given similar written consent to revise their seniority.
2.4. The appellant alleges that when respondents 13 and 15
sought to approve their appointments, by Ext.P8 order dated
16.04.2015, the Government declined the request in the wake of
the arbitrary and unreasonable stand of the Manager in declining
to give appointment to the Rule 51B claimant and directed the
Manager to appoint the appellant in the vacancy set apart. In
pursuance to Ext.P8 order, the Manager, by Ext.P9 appointment
2025:KER:92459
order, appointed the appellant with effect from 23.09.2015 in the
additional division vacancy which he had set apart in the academic
year 2010-11.
2.5. The Assistant Educational Officer thereafter the revised
staff fixation order for the year 2010-11 by reckoning the bogus
admission, from 19 U.P.S.A's to 18 U.P.S.A's and approved the
appointment of the appellant on a daily wage basis from
28.09.2015 to 31.03.2016 and thereafter on a regular basis from
01.06.2016 by Ext.P10 order dated 27.06.2016. Respondents 10,
12, 13 and 14 were granted approval of their appointments for the
vacancies of the year 2011-12. The appellant states that since the
appellant has been appointed in the additional division vacancy
which had arisen in the year 2010-11, he is entitled to have his
appointment notionally reckoned from 01.06.2010, but for the
illegal stand of the Manager.
2.6. While so, by Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2018 of the
Headmistress, the appellant was retrenched from service with
effect from 16.07.2018 to accommodate one T. S. Sharmila Jose,
H.S.A (Malayalam) on reversion. Ext.P11 order was set aside by
2025:KER:92459
the Additional Director of General Education (Academic) by
directing to grant protection to T. S. Sharmila Jose in the post of
H.S.A (Malayalam) and directed to retain the appellant as U.P.S.A.
by Ext.P12 order dated 25.02.2019. As per the Ext.P13 approved
Seniority List dated 31.01.2018, the appellant is placed below
respondents 8 to 13 and also respondents 14 and 15 had their
appointments approved in the vacancies for the academic year
2011-12. In fact, the appellant is entitled to reckon his seniority
notionally from 01.06.2010 as his appointment is in the vacancy
of an additional post that arose in the year 2010-11 and which was
specifically set apart to satisfy his Rule 51B claim. Therefore, he is
entitled to be placed above respondents 8 to 15.
2.7. The staff fixation order during the year 2019-20
resulted in the reduction of one post of U.P.S.A., and the appellant
was thrown out by reckoning him as the junior most. He challenged
the order of retrenchment by way of a revision, and by Ext.P14
order dated 04.05.2020, the Director of General Education
declined the revision. Though the appellant engaged a counsel to
challenge Exts.P10, P13 and P14 orders before this Court, the
2025:KER:92459
counsel had not filed the writ petition as instructed. Meanwhile,
the appellant received Ext.P15 notice of hearing from the Assistant
Educational Officer, Parassala, pursuant to the Government order
in favour of respondents 14 and 15. Respondents 14 and 15
approached the Government for regularisation of their
appointment by reckoning the additional division vacancy set apart
for the appellant from 01.06.2010, as the appellant was granted
approval of appointment only with effect from 01.06.2016.
According to the appellant, the Manager was also hand-in-glove
with respondents 14 and 15 contended to have adjusted the 15 th
respondent in the vacancy of the appellant. The Government,
without notice to the appellant by Ext.P16 order dated 31.08.2019,
directed to adjust the 14th respondent in the vacancy of the
appellant with effect from 01.06.2010 and also directed the
Assistant Educational Officer, Parassala, to pass consequential
orders. The appellant came to know about Ext.P16 order only when
he received Ext.P15 notice from the Assistant Educational Officer,
Parassala. It was under those circumstances, the appellant
approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.15990 of 2023.
2025:KER:92459
3. In the writ petition, the 5th respondent filed a counter
affidavit dated 31.10.2023, opposing the reliefs sought by the
appellant. Similarly, the 6th respondent also filed a counter-
affidavit dated 28.03.2024 in the writ petition. After hearing both
sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned
Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025,
dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that
though the appellant is a Rule 51B claimant and he was appointed
on a regular basis only with effect from 01.06.2016, the delay in
making the appointment was primarily due to the litigations
pending in this regard. The appellant has not cared to challenge
the Ext.P10 order dated 27.06.2016 by which the appointment of
the appellant was approved with effect from 01.06.2016 by the
Assistant Educational Officer, within a reasonable time. As the
appellant was regularly appointed only with effect from
01.06.2016, the appellant cannot aspire to get his appointment
notionally approved from 01.06.2010. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed
this writ appeal.
2025:KER:92459
4. In the appeal memorandum, it is stated that during the
pendency of the writ petition, the appellant was re-appointed with
effect from 24.06.2024 by Ext.P17 order dated 24.06.2024 by the
Manager. The Assistant Educational Officer is insisting for K-TET to
approve the appointment with effect from 24.06.2024. However,
the Government by Ext.P18 order dated 05.11.2024 ordered to
approve the appointment by extending the relaxation of K-TET till
the declaration of the result in the examination proposed to be
conducted in May 2025. Meanwhile, the Assistant Educational
Officer rejected the approval of the appointment of the appellant
by Ext.P19 order dated 29.12.2024 by citing the reason that the
Manager of the school did not respond to the call to cure the defect
sought by the Assistant Educational Officer.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
Ext.P16 order cannot be sustained since it was passed behind the
back of the appellant by adjusting respondent No. 14 in the
vacancy in which the appellant has been appointed. The learned
2025:KER:92459
counsel submitted that the appointment of the appellant ought to
have been notionally reckoned with effect from 01.06.2010, the
date from which the vacancy was set apart by the Manager for the
Rule 51B claimant. If his appointment was notionally reckoned
with effect from 01.06.2010, he could at least save his re-
appointment by Ext.P17 order on 24.06.2024 without insisting for
K-TET. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects
while dismissing the writ petition.
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that Ext.P16 order was passed in pursuance
to Ext.P10 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer.
Ext.P16 will not give rise to any new cause of action to the
appellant. Since the appellant failed to challenge Ext.P10 order, by
which the position is settled, he is not entitled to get the reliefs
sought in the writ petition.
8. The father of the appellant died in harness on
17.07.1985. On attaining majority and on acquiring the required
qualifications, the appellant raised a claim under Rule 51B of
Chapter XIVA of KER. Due to continuous litigations, the
2025:KER:92459
appointment of the appellant as U.P.S.A. was approved only with
effect from 01.06.2016 as per Ext.P10 order of the Assistant
Educational Officer. Due to the delayed appointment of the
appellant, he was treated as junior and was sent out due to loss
of post during the academic year 2019-20. In Ext.P10, the
appointment of the appellant was approved on a daily wage basis
from 28.09.2015 to 31.03.2016. Respondents 10, 12, 13 and 14
were granted approval of their appointments for the vacancies in
the year 2011-12. It is true that when the appellant was
retrenched from service with effect from 16.07.2018 to
accommodate T. S. Sharmila Jose as H.S.A. (Malayalam), who was
reverted by Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2018, the appellant did not
challenge Ext.P10 order of the Assistant Educational Officer. But it
is to be noted in this case that throughout these years, after
acquiring the qualification, the appellant was agitating his cause
before various forums, such as the educational authorities
concerned, before this Court and also before the Apex Court.
Though for the first time he was granted appointment by the
Manager in the year 2015, the orders in favour of the appellant
2025:KER:92459
were passed as early as in the year 2006 onwards. Moreover,
though there is no material to prove the same, according to the
appellant, he engaged a counsel to challenge Exts.P10, P13 and
P14 orders before this Court, and the counsel had not filed the writ
petition as instructed. Further, the learned counsel for the
appellant pointed out that within a short period after the passing
of Ext.P10 order, the appellant was retrenched to accommodate
another H.S.A (Malayalam) on her reversion. In such
circumstances, the non-challenging of Ext.P10 by the appellant
immediately after the passing of that order by the Assistant
Educational Officer cannot be considered as belated.
9. From the materials placed on record, we notice that
from the initial period of dispute itself, the stand of the Manager is
that one vacancy that arose during the year 2010-11 was set apart
for satisfying the Rule 51B claimant. Approval to the other
appointees as U.P.S.A. was given on an undertaking that they will
not raise any objection in revising their seniority based on the
judgment pertaining to the Rule 51B claimant. The entitled
appointment on compassionate grounds was not granted to the
2025:KER:92459
appellant for a lengthy period, due to the adamant attitude of the
Manager, as evident from the continuous litigations as mentioned
above. In such circumstances, we find force in the contentions of
the appellant that Exts.P10, P13, P14 and P16 orders were passed
without properly considering the contention of the appellant
regarding the fixation of his appointment notionally to the vacancy
that was set apart for Rule 51B claimant, which had arisen in the
year 2010-11. Therefore, the orders under challenge are liable to
be set aside to the above extent, of non-consideration of the claim
of the appellant for notional appointment in the additional division
vacancy which had arisen in the year 2010-11. The learned Single
Judge failed to consider these contentions in their proper
perspective while dismissing the writ petition.
In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the
impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge and the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside
Exts.P10, P13, P14 and P16 orders to the extent of non reckoning
of the appointment of the appellant notionally with effect from
01.06.2010, from the date of arising of the vacancy which was set
2025:KER:92459
apart for Rule 51B claimant. The 5th respondent, Assistant
Educational Officer, is directed to reconsider the aforesaid claim of
the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
after hearing all the aggrieved, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
